This article contains my personal opinion . . . so be warned!
A friend has asked me to pass on the word that tomorrow night, the Planning Commission is set to consider (and likely grant the application for) a new affordable housing development that has been in the works for at least two years: Beall's Grant II, which would be across Washington Street from the "pink bank," at the beginning of Beall Ave's residential stretch.
Montgomery Housing Partnership is behind the application.
Fellow Rockville Blogger Helen Triolo described the project back in April this way:
Rockville leads the way with affordable workforce housing once more with a new project in the works: Beall's Grant II (PDF link). Undertaken by Montgomery Housing Partnership, this project will provide 109 units of mixed income rental housing in downtown Rockville, from studios to three-bedroom apartments, with a parking garage, on the site where the current Beall's Grant apartments are, and extending out to Beall Avenue. It appears to be an ideal location: within walking distance of the metro, Giant, SuperFresh (when it opens), the post office, and all the other stores and businesses in downtown Rockville. Involving the renovation of an existing building and incorporating a wealth of green features, I imagine this is just the sort of affordable housing project Ike Leggett wants to promote throughout the county.
I agree and think it is a super addition to the neighborhood I call home. I am told the West End Civic Association and the Town Center Action Team support the enterprise.
Here's what the West End Civic Association says about the proposal:
Beall's Grant was bought and renovated by the Montgomery Housing Partnership over ten years ago. In that time, they have been good neighbors who create no problems or disruptions from our special part of the city we love. Montgomery Housing Partnership has been a responsible partner, whose staff is commited to being responsive to any concerns we have ever raised. Questions regarding school numbers, parking spaces, and environmental impact have all been answered in a timely and thorough manner.
There is a flier circulating, attempting to galvanize opposition to the project and urging people to show up at tomorrow night's Planning Commission meeting. The flier strikes an alarming tone: "Do you know? . . . This high density, low income rental property will be placed at West End's gateway to our new Town Center, in a residential area already saturated with subsidized housing?" [UPDATE: Here is the flyer.]
I honestly don't know where to start with a remark like that. I love my neighborhood because it is not a bunch of similar high-end dwelling pods but instead a mixed-income neighborhood that grew up over time. There is a woefully inadequate amount of affordable housing in Rockville. We should welcome a development that has bent over backwards to "fit in" and to take the lead on being "green" -- not shut the door and tell the poor folks to go live elsewhere.
You can see I have a bit of a bee in my bonnet over this. I understand others disagree. That's OK, feel free to let folks know how you feel in the comments section.
So . . . what do you think?
Reader
25 comments -- add yours!:
I wonder who was responsible for generating these flyers?
I wonder who was responsible for leaving that last comment?
That was me. The comment policy: "Please only use an anonymous screen name if absolutely necessary. Try using your name instead. We are neighbors."
I can tell you that my "neighbors" in Rockville have done anything BUT treat me as a neighbor, and the city bended to their wishes and now its hard for me to even drive out of "my" neighborhood in the morning to go to work, as I am not considered as a resident in my own neighborhood.
Thus the anonymous comment. Rockville has not been so friendly to me.
I am in total support of the development. Even though I didn't agree with the person who left the flyer on my doorstep I was glad to receive it so I could e-mail the city with my endorsement of the project.
Low-income housing does not belong hidden from the rest of the world. That only reinforces disenfranchisement. Putting subsidized housing in a prominent location allows those residents to take pride in where they live and it forces them to maintain the property since it is under the scrutiny of the whole neighborhood.
I am opposed to the development in its present form. THe new building will be contain over 8(!) times the number of units it is replacing. The statement that it provides additional workforce housing for Town Center is absurd. We are NOT a resort community requiring on-site housing. Access to metro and buses means that workforce housing can be located elsewhere. If workforce housing for its citizenry is a priority of our government - then I'd like a subsidy to live near my office in Bethesda/Chevy Chase- I can't afford that!
WECA, in its letter, purported that the support was unanimous. However, the minutes of the meeting don't indicate who supported the motion or how many people were in attendance. The March meeting had 89 people in attendance and was well advertised. 89 people is less than 3% of the WECA membership. I find their letter misleading and unrepresentative of my opinion.
I am not suggesting denying the housing in its entirety but I do strongly oppose the size of the proposed project.
Karen
Could someone please post the contents of that flyer? I am very interested in what it says, and who created it, and what their objections are to the development.
I live in Bealls Grant I, and support the project. The characterization of people living in subsidized housing as being of low moral character is very offensive. If you spend any time at the intersection of Dawson and N Washington, it is hardly dangerous - you can even walk around at night. I moved here from Gaithersburg, and that was a VERY dangerous area.
The old building had 14 units, but it was sprawled out on a large lot. This new project will obviously be more compressed and compact, but that is appropriate to an urbanized setting.
Resentment is a very ugly quality: "just because I can't afford to live near my work, no one else should be able to". That's really deplorable.
Thanks; I neglected to post the flyer. It is here.
The Rockville Town Center is the very definition of a high density housing project. Note that the option only applies to those who can afford a property for over $600,000 (plus large HOA fees on top of the $3500/month mortgage).
So why weren't we thinking of lower income dwellers then? Now we are in a situation where even basic parking is at a premium downtown. I can't get to the library now without going through a parking garage and paying for a space. When that supermarket opens, the downtown area is going to be completely over crowded.
Beall Elementary, as an example, is finally to the point where it can moderately sustain its numbers and be a productive institution and it still remains beyond overcrowded. Perhaps we should just put up trailors in the play yard like many of the other County elementary schools who can no longer handle their bulging student population.
Point being--if we were really concerned, as a neighborhood, about providing affordable housing for all of our residents while also diversifying our neighborhood, then why didn't we start when we initiated the social and demographic ojectives for the whole Town Center?
Now we are going to patch the hole we left with another large housing project to further compound crowding issues in our town?
We really missed the bubble here with regards to strong strategic planning efforts.
I strongly oppose another 100 units so close to the already overpopulated town center--REGARDLESS of their price tag and intended inhabitants.
BTW, I believe the Town Square development includes 96 "Moderately Priced Dwelling Units," out of 644 overall. Last I heard all the MPDU's were occupied.
Also, I believe I have heard that Beall Elementary is projecting a slight downtick in school population, but I may be misremembering that.
In regards to the posting of 11:15 by anonomous, I am not sure where in the world you read that "Karen" ever characterized the RESIDENTS of Beall's Grant at all.
You stated that she posted they were "of low moral character" and that the area surrounding the dwellings was "dangerous".
Nobody has said this or posted it so I am not sure how you twisted those notions out of her comments.
If you want to argue about how you "think" people are "really feeling"--in that perhaps, we really don't want the lower income housing DWELLERS, then that is certainly an inappropriate debate technique.
Stick to the real issues. This is all about overcrowding in every area -- parking, grocery stores, shops and especially schools--and certainly it's about maintaining our [already actively depreciating] property values.
Brad--Valid point on the MPDUs at the Town Center.
I remember viewing them when I toured the Town Center in late 2006.
To my recollection, these were not roped off, Section 8 projects where you had to meet a certain income criteria in order to purchase. Certainly, this would have met the mark and in concert with really providing realistic housing options to those who wanted to live in Rockville but would otherwise be unable to afford it.
These were just (apparently 96) lower priced, yet super nice condos. So really--I believe anybody in any income bracket could move in there and get a terrific deal.
That is not meeting any viable social or diversification objective.
Regarding the Beall Elementary statistics--that's wonderful news if true. honestly!
My post was in reference to the inflammatory words that were used in the FLYER. That's why I mentioned the flyer in my post. I never once used "Karen"'s name.
The flyer very explicitly weaves together codewords like "high density low-income", "saturated", "saturation", "transient nature" that evoke something along the lines of Baltimore in "The Wire".
But thanks very, very much for using the word DWELLERS - and extra points for capitalizing it!! You've made it abundantly clear that no one could twist any meaning from your comments, and there's no question whatsoever the level of contempt that you have for the type of people you imagine that this project would attract.
The real issues are being polluted by inflammatory language, and you and the flyer have done a magnificent job of demonstrating that.
But - back to rational arguments. There are two categories of concerns here - one is strictly property-related, and the other is motivated by class-warfare against the poor and minorities.
It's obvious that a lot of people would have no problem whatsoever if Bealls Grant II was just another corporation selling 109 condominium units priced at $500,000 and up, regardless of the fact that those units would generate just as much overcrowding and traffic and school population as would a building of MPDUs. There are certainly valid concerns there.
It's also obvious that a huge amount of shrill hysteria gets generated only because the project is intended as rental housing and MPDUs. That's where all the doublespeak gets dragged in, by people who are distributing their propaganda anonymously because they're not arguing against the presence of development at Bealls Grant II - they object to it on the grounds that it's intended for "undesirable" elements. The implied threats against depreciating property values are a joke here - do you really honestly think that the presence of 109 rental apartments in the midst of hundreds of millions of dollars of buildings is going to really make any difference at all in the economic demographics of the West End of Rockville? Come oh, get real.
It's especially easy during difficult economic times, when people are feeling insecure about their own status (especially when they've invested all their resources into a house) to divert attention away from the real and complex causes of property depreciation, by pointing the finger at other struggling people and saying "look, they're getting something!! it's not fair!! You had to work and sacrifice, and you're getting hosed!!" That's what a lot of this boils down to.
Oh, and by the way - many of the houses that abut the Bealls Grant properties are investment rentals that are not occupied by their owners. I actually find that more ethically objectionable - that people are profiting off a neighborhood without living there. I have a lot more respect for the renters who are actually living in the neighborhood, working people living a modest lifestyle and just trying to get by, day-by-day.
There is no sense continuing debate when one side is creating a class-based scenario that did not previously exist.
There are real reasons why citizens (or us dwellers) feel as though this project should not occur in the manner that it is progressing. Too bad the counsel (and apparently the WECA?!) did not bother to consider these objections before they put their support behind the project.
From my lens, the biggest concern is density. Going from 14 to 109 units seems like too much in that spot for me. For those supporting the project, I'd ask what your threshold is. If the project called for 500 additional units in that spot, would you still support it? 1000 additional - still support it? 10,000? At some point, you too will say the number sounds too high and you would no longer support the project. I think most people would agree that if the number of occupants in the new building was comparable to what's there now, there wouldn't be much of a debate. But replacing what's there with a building to house 8 times as many people/families are are there now seems a little extreme - especially since we still don't know the full impact of Town Center and won't know until the unoccupied units in Town Center have been rented or sold.
This is all a matter of opinion based on personal experiences and the perceived impact it can have on each of us and our families.
I oppose the development because I think 109 units is too much for that space regardless of whether it's MPDU or $500K condos - Either way, I still don't support this project.
I also take exception to the letter that was sent from WECA stating that they represent my views. Regardless of what that letter says, she doesn't and they don't represent my views or the views of some neighbors I've spoken to - and we all live in the West End.
I don't understand how that letter could have been written when the majority of those living in the West End are either unaware or aren't fully aware of the Beall's Grant project. It would be the equivalent of me sitting down with my neighbors, agreeing on something and sending a letter to the Mayor and Council saying that we voted, unamimously agreed to something and our vote represents all the homes in the West End. It's ludicrous.
There are 14 unoccupied units there now. Zero people, empty, zilch. So, weighing "comparable" is not statistically valid. Right now there is a space of almost a solid empty acre, between the empty 14-unit building and the empty parking lot. Either it continues to sit empty and unused, or it gets developed. To put in another 14-unit building in the same piece of space would be as objectionable as putting 109 units there, since it would be a gross waste of resources.
Obviously, someone put a lot of time and effort into determining what the number of appropriate units would be, for the amount of land available for building and the carrying capacity of the community.
It was the writers of the flyer who phrased this in an inflammatory class-based conflict, who are using loaded words to characterize renters as the human equivalent of vermin.
Who's "gross waste of resources?" Throughout Rockville, there are homes on quarter acre lots, some even on half acre lots. Are those a gross waste of resources, too? It might not make economic sense for an organization to put a 14 unit apartment building on that space, but that's different than being a gross waste of resources.
And just because someone put a lot of time and effort into creating a compelling business case that shows a building with 109 units is economically feasible, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. It only means that someone can demonstrate how to make it look economically viable to put a building of that size and density in that location.
And I'm trying to figure out what's so inflammatory and "class-based" about the flyer and which words are "loaded."
Is it that they say "high density, low income rental property?"
Here is one of the objectives of the Montgomery Housing Partnership:
"Develop with the County a pilot program that begins to address the affordable housing needs of very low income households (as evidenced by the growing Section 8 waiting list) in Montgomery County"
So, that was a true statement.
Was it "transient nature of apartments?"
By definition, people living in apartments are more transient than those owning their homes because they're renting. People who rent move more often than people who own. I don't think there's any arguing with that one.
Was it "saturation of subsidized housing already?"
Maybe that's what was inflammatory, although I'm not getting it.
If the flyer had inaccurate information in it, I'd like to know what it is. I'm not the author or distributor of the flyer, but feel it's as valid a document as this one is: http://rockvilleliving.com/blog/docs/BeallsGrantII.pdf.
Neither of them alone tell the whole story, but one is supportive and the other is not. One tries to convince you it's the best thing for Rockville and its neighborhoods and comes from an organization trying to build the development and the other has an opposing viewpoint and (I assume) comes from people who actually live in the neighborhood who will be directly affected by it for years to come.
It's too bad we weren't having this conversation earlier in the process.
There was only one resident at the Planning Commission meeting who spoke in support of the project. When residents that live in the area spoke of their objections, some planning commission members became almost combative and did in fact turn argumentative, showing little to no respect for their opinions. The point isn't how long they have lived there, or if they knew there was crime when they bought their homes. Folks have the right to express their opinions and the commission has the responsibility to listen and respect their right.
Quite right, Joseph, it is definitely the obligation of Commission members to remain civil and respectful of the public. I have written on this issue before -- in respect to the very same commission we are now discussing.
I wonder, respecting the low supporter turnout, if Montgomery Housing Partnership was taken by surprise at opposition to something they may have thought was moving ahead with smooth sailing. After all, this has been going on since at least 2006 (that is when it first came before WECA) and they have been working hard to address concerns.
One assumption that has gone unchallenged in these comments is that there is already too much housing in Town Center. I couldn’t disagree more. In order for Town Center to support more diverse retail and to be more than just a destination for mall people, we need enough residents within walking distance to support neighborhood-serving establishments such as hardware stores, independently-owned groceries, and other small businesses. Without more customers living close by, the only businesses that can afford the rents in Town Center are the kinds of businesses that people are willing to drive long distances to frequent - which is why our retail is mostly chain stores and restaurants.
If high density in and of itself were a bad thing, San Francisco, New York, and Boston - our nation’s densest cities - would be undesirable urban environments. The truth is that high density is needed for a city to support a diverse and healthy mix of retail, to justify public transit, and to reduce dependency on automobiles.
Don’t get me wrong - I think Town Center is great. But I wish it had a better retail mix.
I wanted very much to attend and to speak as a representative of renters at Bealls Grant I, but decided that the vicious level of discourse exhibited here against "those people" was not something I wanted to encounter on a personal level. I watched the meeting via streaming video online, and, in retrospect I do wish that I had attended, if only to show at least one human case of the population that was being vilified as criminal and parasitic.
I'm sure that, had someone created a bright pink flyer with URGENT!!! scrawled across the top, and then thrust it into the hands of Bealls Grant I residents, warning them of impending doom, more than a few would have shown up at the meeting to speak in support of the project.
Why don't we just stick them where they belong!!
Put them in Twinbrook or Lincoln Park!!
They will ruin our lives!!
They make Rockville a horrible place!!
We don't want them in Town Center!!
I thought Rockville was a great town, full of open minded people who support one another.
How dare they build more low income homes on a site where there are already low income homes!!
Go visit First Street, remember Moore Drive?
Oh no too many black faces!!
Quoting joshlubell's post of 7/24/2008 9:25 AM.
"If high density in and of itself were a bad thing, San Francisco, New York, and Boston - our nation’s densest cities - would be undesirable urban environments. The truth is that high density is needed for a city to support a diverse and healthy mix of retail, to justify public transit, and to reduce dependency on automobiles."
I ask joshlubell how many "hardware stores, independently-owned groceries, and other small businesses" that are not "chain stores and restaurants" do you find in the densest parts of big cities? My impression is that people who live in the downtown parts of big cities have to drive to the suburbs to find a Home Depot or a WalMart when they need to do serious buying of other than boutique-shop items.
Many sociologists will tell you that there is a school of thought dedicated to the proposition that density is undesirable in many respects. And many people who live in other parts of our nation will tell you that there is much to be complimented about "small towns". Regardless of one's perspective shouldn't we allow those who don't agree to have a place that is to their liking in which to live? I dare say that the vast majority of the current residents of Rockville are here because they like it's relatively lower density better than they like San Fran, NYC or Beantown (or Paris or Barcelona for the charette-goers). Please let Rockville remain something other than those more dense urban centers. The present course will eventually drive us all out either because we get tired of the crowding or because we just can't afford it any longer.
Rockville Central friend Mark Pierzchala passed along the following comment:
I attended this Planning Commission meeting. While not happy with aspects of it, one of the big problems for the protesting neighbors is what I call "The Big Surprise". Most of them found out only on Monday (two days before this meeting) of this particular application.
I've seen other Big Surprises in Rockville and experienced this myself. Those who are caught out are suddenly on the defensive and have limited time to prepare and state their case. This often results in unpleasant meetings and confrontation.
Timely and effective notification on such high-impact neighborhood issues are constant concerns. The requirements for notification are stated in the zoning ordinance, and I hope Mayor and Council take a second look at these as they continue to review the new zoning ordinance.
For these immediate neighbors to have had a fairer chance to influence the proposal they would have had to have been drawn into the process far sooner than this last PC meeting. Perhaps they could not have stopped it, but maybe they would have been able to reduce its scope, or at least obtain more conditions attached to its approval. The neighbors did not have a fair say in this project just because they had a chance to express their concerns at this meeting. (I personally support Phase II of Beall's Grant Apartments.)
The meeting did have the good effect of raising some city-wide issues on the distribution of these developments, traffic and school impacts, among others.
I have attended about 8 meetings of the Planning Commission in the past few months. About half of these were work sessions on the new zoning ordinance and the others on various projects around the City. The body has a good mix of experienced and inexperienced members, and taken together their knowledge of planning matters is very high. Their work on the draft zoning ordinance was excellent.
Mark Pierzchala
Clearly, RockvilleCentral supports Beall's Grant II. If you want to see some opposing viewpoints, check out this newly created site by some other citizens:
http://sites.google.com/site/stopbeallgrant2/
The power of the web!
Why must they build in a prime location such as the West End? Can't they build where there's plenty of land on the "other" side of Rockville, so we can protect what little equity our homes still have? Seriously, why not behind the Metro (if the government is really concerned with giving certain people more convenience, then building this housing project right behind the Metro is a much better spot; otherwise, we risk lawsuits if one of them gets hit trying to cross Rockville Pike to get to the Metro so they can go to work). I think it's a disgusting idea to put what will essentially be Section 8 housing on such precious land. So infuriating...
Post a Comment